«

"io_x" wrote:
> [Xpost to: alt.comp.programming, alt.lang.asm,
> comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++, comp.programming]

> the people that speak not good about "goto"
> are uttled wrong; their code bug full etc

> more distant is your code from goto
> more your code is bug full and incompresible

> the "goto" is the key word for programming;
> all the remain, other than goto or jmp or jc or jz,
> and the easy cpu layout
> is the wrong way for programming

Except that GOTO is a HLL keyword and I'm Asmist and
more machine-code oriented than concerned about needs
within abstract structured HLL-compilers, I see nothing
wrong with GOTO as long it does what a programmer want.

I once checked PowerBasic's GOTO and found it always
compiled a long (16:16) jump, even rare required.
But its syntax checker cried aloud if you tried to
jump out of a [FOR/IF/...]-struct with GOTO.

I don't know C/C+-, but what I see by disassembling their
resulting output seem to end up in heavy bloated code,
perhaps from using BREAK and GOTO within nested blocks,
which the compiler may grant with copying all required
code-trails (stack recover/cleanup) to every added path.
So in this aspect GOTO may be really not the best choice.

see me happy for I don't need to care this in my world
__
wolfgang (ALA)

On Apr 26, 9:46*am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> > Except that GOTO is a HLL keyword and I'm Asmist and
> > more machine-code oriented than concerned about needs
> > within abstract structured HLL-compilers, I see nothing
> > wrong with GOTO as long it does what a programmer want.
>
> you see all jmp, je, jc etc etc for me they are all gotos

A conditional jump is predicated instruction. I don't see anything
predicative in a goto statement, which isn't to say that the
similarity couldn't be deceiving without thinking about the
differences.

Hmmm.. so anything that changes the IP is a goto? By this defition
"NOP" would be a goto. Actually, this whole thread is glorious waste
of time, seriously guys.. this needs to be asked: WHAT THE ****!?!??

On 04/30/10 23:06, hanukas wrote:
> On Apr 26, 9:46 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>>> Except that GOTO is a HLL keyword and I'm Asmist and
>>> more machine-code oriented than concerned about needs
>>> within abstract structured HLL-compilers, I see nothing
>>> wrong with GOTO as long it does what a programmer want.
>>
>> you see all jmp, je, jc etc etc for me they are all gotos
>
> A conditional jump is predicated instruction. I don't see anything
> predicative in a goto statement, which isn't to say that the
> similarity couldn't be deceiving without thinking about the
> differences.
>
> Hmmm.. so anything that changes the IP is a goto? By this defition
> "NOP" would be a goto. Actually, this whole thread is glorious waste
> of time, seriously guys.. this needs to be asked: WHAT THE ****!?!??
>

"mov eax, ebx" is a goto to the next machine instruction (ps: it has a
side effect of moving some arbitrary bits around in the memory, but
that's implementation detail, we don't care about that). So, ban mov!

io_x wrote:

....
> --------------------
> yes "je .1" would it mean "if zero flag == 1 goto .1";
> "je" is a 'conditional' goto;
> jmp is a goto.

Whereas "break", in my world, is an "OS thing" and has to do with
memory, not flow-control. I wanna use 'em both!

Best,
Frank